Wheelabrator-Frye believes it important for the United States to recognize both the energy and raw materials value of our refuse. We should make the concerted effort now to maximize our utilization of this increasingly important domestic resource. The technology to do this has been well demonstrated for years throughout the world and is now processing over 9 million tons of refuse. An increasingly important feature of these systems is that they require no auxiliary fuel for operation-there is no combustion energy penalty of any kind. The 1,500 ton-per-day WFI/Von Roll refuse-to-energy system now under construction at Saugus, Mass., is evidence of our belief in the necessity for and reliability of these systems. Representing a capital cost of approximately $30 million, the plant will convert the municipal refuse of up to eighteen adjacent North Shore communities to clean energy that will be sold to the General Electric Lynn River Works in Lynn, Mass. This clean energy from refuse will save G.E. the equivalent of about 1.750 barrels a day of low sulfur fuel-about 73,000 gallons. The process will recover the ferrous metals from the refuse as well, and produce a high quality sterile ash suitable for roadfill or sanitary landfill. The Wheelabrator-Frye system is highly adaptable to unlimited materials recovery prior to combustion as the technology develops and to the extent that markets for recovered materials make such pre-treatment and separation economical. We are following EPA's work in this area very closely as well as the general technology development activities of the private sector. The U.S. Bureau of Mines has two systems of great interest to Wheelabrator-Frye: a Lowell, Mass., program to develop potential uses for the output sterile ash residue and metals following incineration for energy recovery; and, a pilot plant at College Park, Md., focusing upon various methods of pretreatment separation prior to combustion. Wheelabrator-Frye fully intends to maximize the recovery of both energy and materials from refuse as its commercial feasibility continues to develop.

Through a joint venture with M. DeMatteo Construction Co. of Boston, Wheelabrator-Frye will own and operate the plant and assume all capital and ongoing operational costs. The municipalities will simply pay the plant a disposal charge roughly equivalent to their current net disposal outlays. This financing mechanism relieves the municipalities of any burden to raise substantial capital revenues to build the plant. The ownership and operation of the plant by private industry (Wheelabrator-Frye et al.) precludes any ongoing operational expenses to the towns and ensures the efficient operation of the plant based on the sound management practices that characterize the protection of a large capital investment by the corporate sector. A further advantage of this concept is that private industry can traditionally move faster to "get plants up and running" and adapt more readily to technological advances than local governments-especially where many local authorities must work in concert.

Wheelabrator-Frye believes that (1) as the cost of traditional energy sources escalate, (2) the scarcity of landfill sites increases, and (3) our national supply needs for clean energy and raw materials become more acute, the private sector will find refuse-to-energy systems an increasingly attractive venture capital investment. However, federal legislation is required to accelerate a concerted national effort to fully

utilize this clean energy and raw materials resource and solve the bulk of our solid waste disposal problems. The key problem such legislation should address is ensuring the supply of refuse to such systems once they are on line.

The largest single obstacle blocking energy and resource recovery from solid waste is the continued availability of low cost, environmentally hazardous dumping sites. Areas of the country where land is still available and sound waste management practices are not required are now paying from $1.00 to $3.00 per ton to simply dump their refuse. These areas have not been interested in supplying refuse-to-energy systems at, in the short term, higher disposal charges than they now pay. In the continued absence of strong federal requirements and/or firm economic incentives to do so, they are likely to continue this profligate practice the country can no longer afford to allow. Even in those instances where dumping sites are scarce and municipal disposal charges are higher, difficulties exist in getting communities to cooperate in waste disposal agreements to ensure the supply of refuseto-energy plants and offer some measure of protection to the large capital investments such plants require.

Significant problems also occur in satisfying the myriad of state and local permit requirements for such plants. State and local governments are generally indecisive in the absence of federal pressure and incentives. It is difficult to get several municipalities to agree to a collective action and conflicting special interest groups always complicate such efforts. Further, many communities do not realize that energy and materials recovery enhance environmental protection rather than aggravate existing solid waste management problems.

Clearly, the type of strong federal permit program for both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes contained in Title V of S. 2753 would help solve both the supply and permit problems for such recovery systems. The more difficult it becomes for municipalities to continue to dump their refuse in the "cheapest possible" manner, the greater the likelihood of recovery systems being amply supplied. It follows that a permit program specifically requiring municipalities to supply such systems, based upon uniform criteria and specifications for such systems, would substantially accelerate this recovery effort. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the recently proposed Federal Energy Administration (FEA) could jointly develop and administer such criteria and specifications in addition to certifying such installations. Private industry should retain the primary burden to finance such recovery systems. The operation and maintenance of the plants could also be largely accomplished by the private sector with the accompanying advantages discussed above. Such a federal permit system would provide the needed direction/incentive to ensure the supply of the systems and fully mobilize the financial and technological capability of the private sector. As refuse becomes increasingly valuable for its energy and materials content, industry will move even more quickly to develop this emerging market. This mobilization of the private sector will preclude the need for another massive federal public works program to construct the needed facilities and train the required personnel to operate them.

The environmental benefits of such a comprehensive permit program are obvious. The unsafe, unpleasant and polluting "dump" would eventually disappear and no longer blight our landscape and despoil valuable land required for more beneficial purposes. Given the strong legislative protection our air and water now enjoy, such a program would "close the loop" and remove the last gap in a truly comprehensive national effort to protect our natural environment and resources. It is axiomatic that all recovery systems be required to meet all pollution control standards as a prerequisite to their initial and ongoing certification.

8. "Fuel from Wastes: A Minor Energy Source," Science (Nov. 1972), pp. 599-602:

At the same time that the United States has begun to consume far greater quantities of fossil fuels than can be produced domestically, it has also begun to produce far greater quantities of solid organic wastes than can be consumed by landfills and other conventional methods of disposal. A great amount of experimental work has indicated that these wastes can be converted into synthetic fuels, thereby apparently solving both problems simultaneously.

Many arguments in favor of such a solution have been highly simplistic, however, and have ignored the difficulties of marketing lowvalue energy resources. Many proponents of conversion, furthermore, have frequently both overestimated the amounts of suitable waste materials available and underestimated the difficulties of collecting sufficient quantities to make operation of a conversion plant economically acceptable. It is thus clear that, while conversion of organic wastes to fuels is an ideal way to dispose of the wastes, it is probably not a feasible method of averting an energy crisis.

The United States unquestionably generates fantastic quantities of solid wastes-about 1.1 billion tons of inorganic mineral wastes and more than 2 billion tons of organic wastes each year. As recently as a year ago, waste conversion proponents argued that treatment of this organic waste would produce nearly 2.5 billion barrels of oil per year, or roughly half this country's annual consumption. Newer estimates suggest that this number is somewhat exaggerated.

There are three major routes for conversion of these wastes to synthetic fuels: hydrogenation, pyrolysis, and bioconversion. Hydrogenation and pyrolysis have been advanced to the pilot and demonstration plant stages of development, respectively, and will probably be commercialized within this decade. Bioconversion has received only a minor research effort, however, and commercialization is unlikely before 1985.

The most highly publicized, and perhaps most promising, conversion method is the hydrogenation process developed by Herbert R. Appell and Irving Wender of BuMines' Pittsburgh Energy Research Center. This process might more aptly be termed a deoxygenation or chemical reduction process, since the principal reaction is abstraction of oxygen from cellulose-the primary component of organic wastes by carbon monoxide and steam. Like pyrolysis and bioconversion, the process can be applied to virtually all organic wastes.

In the process, organic waste and as much as 5 percent of an alkaline catalyst such as sodium carbonate are placed in a reactor with carbon monoxide and steam at an intial pressure of 100 to 250 atmospheres and heated at 240° to 380° C. for as long as an hour. Under optimum conditions, as much as 99 percent of the carbon content is converted to oil-about 2 barrels per ton of dry waste. In practice, more than 85 percent conversion is normally obtained. Because some of the oil must be used to provide heat and carbon monoxide for the reaction, however, the net yield is about 1.25 barrels per ton of dry waste.

The energy value of the oil is about 15,000 British thermal units per pound.

TABLE 1.-AMOUNTS (10 TONS) OF DRY, ASH-FREE ORGANIC SOLID WASTES PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1971

The second major route for production of synthetic fuels is pyrolysis or destructive distillation. A major disadvantage of pyrolysis is that the process generally produces at least three different fuels-gas, oil, and char, for instance thus multiplying collection and marketing problems. Because pyrolysis is performed at atmospheric pressure, however, construction and operating costs should be lower than for hydrogenation. Several groups have investigated pyrolysis, including BuMines, but the most advanced process was developed by Garrett Research and Development Company, La Verne, California, the research arm of Occidental Petroleum Corporation.

The Garrett pyrolysis process is part of a complete system designed for disposal of urban refuse. Waste is first shredded and dried, and inorganic materials are removed for recycling or disposal. The organic waste is then reshredded and heated by a proprietary heat-exchanger, developed by Garrett, to about 500° C in an oxygen-free atmosphere. Each ton of refuse produces almost 1 barrel of oil, 140 pounds of ferrous metals, 120 pounds of glass, 160 pounds of char, and varying amounts of low energy gas (400 to 500 Btu per scf). The gas is recycled to provide the oxygen-free atmosphere for pyrolysis and, with part of the char, is burned to supply heat for the process.

Because of the high oxygen content, the energy value of the oil is only about 10,500 Btu/lb.

Garrett claims to have invested more than $3 million in development of the pollution-free process and has tested it for more than a year in a 4-ton-per-day pilot plant at La Verne. The company recently received a contract to build a $4 million, 200-ton-per-day demonstra

29-926-74- 4